a chapter from A Mind-Body Look at the Concept of Asperger's Syndrome (pdf) by Michael Samsel, LMHC

A Hacker News discussion (2021) on this list

In humans, eye contact is the center of the attachment system. In Asperger's Syndrome there is either an avoidance of eye contact (most common) or an unvarying, relative unblinking, staring, constant eye contact (less common). Avoidant eye contact gives an impression of 'having something to hide', and also eliminates a big channel of communication and trust. Staring eye contact, because of its unchanging nature, is also uncommunicative, and is generally experienced as disturbing on the receiving end.

This comes from lack of contact with the body, and lack of embodied emotion. Body language at best is spontaneous and unconscious. When it is consciously undertaken, it tends to be 'flung', hurried, exaggerated and stereotyped, more in line with a code like hand signals than a demonstration of feeling. Muscular spasticities also contribute, since the manner in which he or she moves is less under the person's control.

While body-language often is simplistically considered a code, when most instances are broken down, very few clear consistent correspondences are found between meaning and static position. That is why books on body-language quickly draw interest but fail to satisfy. The truth is, most body language works by producing a feeling in the receiver's own body.

For instance, if you bore me for five minutes at a party, I may listen politely and make small hints and gestures towards the end of that period that I want to do or talk about something else. If you miss this and continue to bore me for 30 minutes, I may erupt in anger and castigate you. To the aspie, this is dumbfounding: It seems I have suddenly changed on a dime because something I was polite about before suddenly I am not polite about. This is not only failing to understand the hints and non-verbal indications. It is lack of understanding tolerance. Many things are tolerated for a short time—loudness, disruptiveness, distractingness, bad jokes, etc.-- because of empathy. Aspies often mistake tolerance for acceptance or approval, because of the belief that something is either 'right' and not criticizable or 'wrong' and should not be permitted at all.

Many people are sincerely friendly, even with, or especially with, people they do not know well. The depth of the feeling is not always proportional to the friendliness which is just an expression of general goodwill. Women especially will act solicitous toward a disruptive person because they take that person to be in distress. This solicitousness can be mistaken for approval of or request for more of the disruptive behavior. A spiral into trouble is easy to foresee.

This is especially difficult for aspie men, who like men generally must make the first unambiguous 'move'. As mentioned in the paragraph above, a woman will tend to show interest in a man that is annoying, with an instinct to soothe. Likewise she will tend to show interest in a man she is sexually attracted to. Many an aspie man has been humiliated making a pass that was completely unwanted.

Some boundaries or standards are really felt things hard to quite pin down in words, and so when committed to rules, they are inconsistent or incompletely described. Implementing these rules requires understanding of what is really bothersome. Aspies tend to dismiss what is not clear or logical.

With Asperger's, it is hard to know what is expected of one in a service situation, because what is expected is knowing what one wants, which is very hard with this Syndrome. Most social occasions involve being served, however, because emotional bonds develop when pleasure is shared.

Where empathy is at the forefront, communication is about impact. Where systematizing is at the forefront, communication is about implication. Both are needed to address real problems responsibly; neither is morally superior. A common transaction is one person telling another person their problems, not to get a solution, but to feel better by the impact on the other. This is a difficult transaction for the aspie (and men in general, and many women) who look for implications of things to do to fix it..

It is embarrassing (that is, it feels bad) to end up on the losing side of a question or conflict. 'Saving face' is a softening of the blow, and has two aspects: 1) All parties know not to refer to the 'loss' explicitly, and 2) the 'loser' is allowed to revise history a bit to make it appear they were not actually opposed to what eventually happened. This is a small dishonesty that is allowed in polite company. Empathy (and pragmatism!) allows face-saving, but from an informational point-of-view, it contaminates the database and aspies are more dedicated to keeping the record clear and accurate.

Tact is truth with empathy. Saying nothing at times may be best, but it is avoidance and not tact. Tact is an art which varies from person to person. With Asperger's Syndrome, there is usually no avoidance, but also no tact. Where empathy is lacking, some truths sound harsh and jarring, and this impact engenders extra resistance in the listener whatever the accuracy of the observation. Frequently it is believed that the person with Asperger's meant to hurt, but this is untrue. He or she is actually speaking the way they wish to be spoken to—directly and straightforwardly.

The underlying belief is that the greatest good comes from the most people having the most information. The feelings of the person seem inadequate reason to leave him or her in the dark. Very occasionally, this can be the right thing to do, but often, to the aspies dismay, the informed person is more angry at him or her than the person originally generating the statements. This is because it is the knowledge that brings the pain. Among neuro-typicals this is a deliberate way to hurt someone, but for an aspie, it is innocent.

This is often badly mistaken for arrogance or a 'god-complex' A person lower on a hierarchy (younger, less seniority, subordinate position, or lower rank) can at times have better information than someone higher on the hierarchy. If information is all that matters, then indeed that person should be telling others what to do. People with Asperger's rarely become boss, and end up resenting bosses that work less hard, are less intelligent, or less knowledgeable than they are (that is most bosses), because it is illogical.

In an informational world, if something is logically right, it should be permitted without restraint, and if it is logically wrong it should be eliminated entirely. It is using reason as 'razor' By contrast, a gray area is a partial allowing of something as long as it doesn't get out of hand. This arises often out of the understanding that one feels different about a matter when directly affected than when viewing it from the outside.

Preferences are both feelings and judgments about the fitness of an option. If one misses the feeling part and recognizes only the judgment, then it is logical to think there are single 'best' preferences based on knowledge and understanding. What is missed is that preferences are about pleasure, sensation, emotion, and personal history, which of course vary from person to person. Some people don't mind debating their judgments (this can't be assumed) but no one likes to have to debate his or her feelings.

An aspie may frequently accuse others of lying. Exaggeration, teasing, impressionistic speech, saying one thing and then saying something different in order to 'box in' a meaning from both sides---these may be experienced as 'lies' by the aspie. Language of course is not just about conveying objective information, but also about producing feeling in the other. “Saying something one doesn't mean,” or at least mean literally, has to do with conveying frustration, or urgency, etc.. to the listener. Aspies understand correction or revision of course, but in those cases people said exactly what they thought was correct at the time. To quickly and casually overturn what one has said recently is taken as evidence of original insincerity, but that is not usually the case.

Some agreements are meant to be solemn promises but most agreements are temporary works in progress. For example a neuro-typical says “lets eat at the Mexican restaurant” and the aspie agrees. Then on the way, the neuro-typical sees a teriyaki restaurant he or she had forgot about and says “oh let's eat here”. The aspie may get disturbed, believing an agreement has been cast aside. This is likely equally true if the aspie prefers teriyaki! The allegiance is to the agreement, not the mutual enjoyment. There is no understanding of a 'whim' A whim is sincere but not meant to be durable. A whim does not become a lie or betrayal by changing.

The typical faux pas is saying something that's true, but 'should' remain unspoken. Aspies are never certain if something is real unless it is explicit. It is hard to stay quiet if there is something that has not been said, and hard to speak and leave something out.

Again this arises from not understanding how context and relationship affect the impact of an interaction. An aspie may be quite argumentative or contentious about views they have had to defend, even when among well-wishers.

Information is in details, and since an aspie seeks connection through mutual comprehension of information. The greater the hope of connection, the more detail is provided. But to a neuro-typical, detail, especially non-human detail, is seen as pushing away connection. (with some non-aspie speakers, excess detail it does have this intention) Moreover, because of a literal conception of honesty and an over-valuation of information, aspies may feel that they are lying if they leave any information out, even through lack of time, or forgetting, or lack of interest on he part of the listener.

Hints consist of saying something uncontroversial, but the meaning is actually something controversial that might arise in the mind of the hearer based on feeling implications. For instance a person wanting to end a social evening might say to the guest, “I bet you have a busy day tomorrow!” The hinting implication works by causing the hearer to go from busy -> to doing lots of things -> to effort -> to needing energy -> to people needing sleep -> to thinking the host needs sleep. When Asperger's is involved however, the statement will tend to be taking literally, the answer may be “no, not at all, I have no plans for tomorrow.” with the hint completely missed. Eventually the host will speak plainly, but because it seems hints have been ignored, the host will speak with rancor, which the aspie guest will experience as coming out of nowhere. Also hints are a dominance-sensitive, that is high-status people are not expected to heed hints but lower status people are. Aspies are often mistaken for arrogant when they don't heed hints.

Smalltalk is bonding behavior. It is about sharing feeling, not information. Information is deliberately kept low to avoid triggering defenses. Gossip contains somewhat more information but but on highly charged topics so that the effect on the hearer is still the purpose.

As is well known jokes cannot be understood intellectually. Most humor is based on the tension between the punchline being illogical and unexpected on one hand, but on the other hand, fitting and agreeable on a impressionistic basis. When an Asperger's person make's a joke, it sometimes is just an arbitrary contradiction, because this is what jokes seem to be.

We recognize familiar faces by how they make us feel. That is, implicit processing is used. The more important a person is to us, the stronger the feeling and so the easier the recognition. That is why not being recognized is taken as an insult--it is seen as a judgment of non-importance. Someone relying on explicit processing, however, only recognizes stronger through familiarity or repetition. The problem usually arises with a new potential friend or person to whom the aspie has been specifically introduced. Because of the importance, recognition should be easy, but to the aspie, because of the newness, recognition is elusive.

Explicit processing is slower than both implicit processing or spontaneous expression. Self-doubt and secondary 'walking on eggshells' only adds to the delay.

This can be two things: 1) being overwhelmed (and perhaps not recognizing it), 2) not recognizing social transitions, which are about attachment and not information.

Probably two prongs 1) Since aspies are trying to complete understanding of the world, fiction is seen as a waste of time since it is potentially (if not practically) limitless, a true open ended system. 2) Fiction is made up, that is, it is not true! A non-fiction book that is made up is considered unethical. Fiction has no restriction and so may not be reliable. Those who like fiction of course do so because the ability to alter reality is used to intensify the interpersonal drama and increase the emotional effect on the reader more strongly, which 'brings the truth home.' A possible exception is some science fiction which is an imaginative reshuffling of systems, or horror, which deals with existential, not interpersonal worries.

Neuro-typical speakers tend to let topics wander, because when this happens, the two speakers find out about each other and 'feel each other out.' Aspies though try to make contact through information. They know that staying on a topic exhaustively makes for the best information exchange. The aspie will usually have a greater depth of factual knowledge about many topic (often by an order of magnitude). Also he or she is reluctant to enter topics about which they know little. Aspies are often willing to listen to lectures about interesting topics, and so see little problem in giving lectures. These can be rambling or technically excellent lectures, but are not based on the interests or effect on the other person.

This is an attempted safe haven from violating social norms. The formal manner is deemed the most considerate or careful by the aspie. But to the neuro-typical it feels out of place and is received by others as either odd, cold or arrogant.

This has several possible causes, 1) The aspie does not like to restate what has been stated sometime in the past (because this calls into question the whole truth-defining nature of explicit statements.) But this fails to set the context for the other person, 2) A naive belief that others are thinking about what one is thinking, or 3) the aspie has been processing something for a long-time and is answering where he or she left off.

Aspies understand the confessional function of apologies but not the empathic one. That is, one can apologize because one has done something wrong and hurt another, but one can also apologize when one has done nothing wrong, or intended no harm, but someone else is nonetheless hurt. In practice of course the distinction is blurred with great benefit-- that is, people apologize in case they have done wrong. This makes unnecessary a dispute over whether someone has done wrong. Relying only on the confessional aspect, aspies only apologize when they are certain they have done wrong, which is a rare event for anybody, human nature being what it is.

The allegiance is to the truth, not the group. This can have great advantages in ethics and justice but it defeats bonding and closeness.

A true compliment is an expression of pleasure, not information. To compliment someone or something is to indicate it has been a source of pleasure. Without this understanding, compliments seems manipulative (as indeed they sometimes are) and aspies abhor manipulation.

Manipulation is getting someone to do what they do not want to do, by using their beliefs against them. Aspies always want to act consistent to beliefs regardless of desire. Whereas a neuro-typical, finding him- or herself doing something they do not want to do might just quit, an aspie will have a difficult time not carrying on even when realizing they are being misused! Hence the automatic wariness about the requests of others.

An aspie definitely wants to learn from the experience of others, but can only do so through the information developed. Especially when it comes to warnings, neuro-typicals tend to remember what not to do, but drop the reasons, or don't even ask, because to the neuro-typical they are especially unneeded. For recommendations of what to do, neuro-typicals may do a little better but often still drop the reasons. But the aspie needs reasons to act. The communicated fear or anticipation of others are not motivating forces. This can lead to a lot of re-inventing the wheel, which to neuro-typicals seems bizarrely unsocial or untrusting.

Quite simply, aspies are never bored!. If information is not available in the immediate environment, it can be brought up in memory. Neuro-typicals only find certain information interesting. Motor restlessness in the listener is not recognized as a clue to boredom (or other distress) because aspies often have the same motor restlessness for other reasons.

Anything broken can be thought of as a system with something out of place. With Asperger's, putting systems right is a joy when it happens, and a huge distraction when it doesn't. Hours may be spent fixing something that only provides a minute's convenience. Others may just want to get on with life. But if one feels life is about putting things in order, how can one proceed when something is 'out of order?'

Generally it is understood that we all have different interests. To connect, people often try to find common interests, which may include some adaptation to make a fit. But aspies tend to not try to adapt to the interests of others but stick their own interests. The interests of others simply are not motivating factors for the aspie. This has the important implication that aspies prefer parallel play, that is, two people doing their own thing next to each other. Most neuro-typical adults are bored with this and think the aspie wants to be left alone, but this is often not the case. Aspies are known for 'solo' play partly because it is difficult to find 'parallel play' partners.

For the aspie this is a sign of discomfort (which is situation appropriate) but is taken naturally as a sign of derision or contempt. The mechanism for this is unclear, but relates to facial control in some way.

This comes from stiffness in the facial muscles and disconnection of the face from emotional centers. Strange faces are usually spontaneous maneuvers to stretch facial muscles.

This applies when another person is confronting or complaining to the aspie. If this is done with tact, graciousness, or restraint, it implies goodwill and an intention to work together.. If the restraint or moderation is missed however, the intent is experienced as hostile and so great defensiveness and hostility may arise in the aspie. The gracious person will feel insulted, but the aspie will feel that the other person 'started it.' An opportunity to resolve the issue and strengthen the relationship is lost.

Aspies tend not to consider the effect of their appearance on others, and clothing is often chosen for very different reasons than how it looks: frugality, low-cost or free, associations with prior good events, etc...'Mismatched' combinations are common, because each piece is chosen more for itself than any overall look. Often very worn-out items are still treasured, kept and worn frequently Because of sensory hypersensitivity, worn items may be the most comfortable.

For instance after re-modeling a room, an aspie might resent the marks or wear and tear that others leave once they commence living in the room. Aspies often look to inanimate objects or abstract concepts to bring about security because both categories, unlike humans, are predictable, reliable, and reliably shape-able. If the tendency is for the abstract, the aspie may seem dreamy. If the tendency is for the inanimate, the aspie may seem 'obsessive-compulsive,' and conflict with others is heightened quite a bit. It is not about greed or hating. The comfort of others is not seen as a plentiful counterbalance to the mess of others because the aspie usually does not value his or her physical comfort.

This is a secondary effect of having been hurt early in life, during a 'naive phase' Aspies are incapable of insincerity and so have trouble recognizing it in others. Aspies have the strength of seeing through razzle-dazzle and perceiving problems about which neuro-typicals are temporarily blinded. Aspies however, may have trouble sizing up character quickly. (This never a foolproof process but it is how most people make friends.) After a certain amount of experience, the default position is taken that others are unreliable, insincere, and badly-intentioned, and of course selective attention is able to pull out small details that seem to confirm this.

An inaccuracy is something 'out of place' and very annoying to the aspie, even if the general gist is understood. On the other hand, the annoyance to the speaker of being continually interrupted is great.

Symbolic meaning, as discussed in the first section, are based on body feeling. True, common metaphors are like codes, but literal thinking can be a habit (but also literal thinking tends to be disciplined and avoids sophistry.)

In a get-to-know-you setting, the aspie either passive or disruptive. It is hard to attune his or her mood to the moods of others, and difficult to adapt interests.

Expediency, which is the quality of an action, in which a rule or principle is temporarily suspended (but not modified for the future) in order to get to a acceptable result quickly. If two people have a disagreement, and one sees that the other feels much more strongly about it, or is more powerful, that person may yield without changing his or her mind at all, because the discomfort of a struggle is not worth the potential benefit. This is expediency. To an aspie, expediency is wrong because comfort and ease can't be weighed against what is right. Sometimes, an aspie will not be happy with getting his or her way if they believe the other person yielded out of expediency! He or she may insist on arguing the point until the other person comes to agree. Neuro-typicals often view the aspie as bizarrely argumentative.